Agreed, if a hunter can't shoot a gun well because of the recoil and blast, a gun with less of both is probably a better choice.
This is a fallacy. I have a 300 Weatherby, it shoots bugholes and of course if I couldn't shoot it, it wouldn't be shooting bugholes. I can shoot it just fine, same as my .375 Ruger, .358 WSM (that one recoils fast) and a .338 I sold not too long ago.
I just don't enjoy shooting those rifles as much as rifles chambered in milder rounds or toting them in the mountains for that matter. Especially during the kind of range sessions where you shoot enough to improve your skills.
So I shoot rifles I enjoy shooting. They kill just fine.
And while it's true that I could practice with the milder rounds and switch to the magnums for the hunt, I see no need to so I don't. It's not rocket science.
I'm pretty sure he was saying their are folks out their i.e. Not you that can't shoot magnums very accurately and probably should shoot something that's not so bad in the recoil department.. Every year yahoos show up from the lower 48 to Alaska with cannons i.e. 416's, 375's to hunt Brn bears and they flinch so [bleep] bad they can't hit [bleep]. They be better served shooting a 30-06 using 180gr partitions. Not everyone is like you and can handle the recoil of a 300 weatherby.
Originally Posted by Bricktop
Then STFU. The rest of your statement is superflous bullshit with no real bearing on this discussion other than to massage your own ego.
